Even breast cancer needs x-rays to detect lumps, not detect cancer. You need a subsequent biopsy to differentiate. That’s our technology right now. If we had a blood test to detect cancer, not lumps, it’s game changing.

Maybe after a generation of early detection, new outcomes will emerge if we can detect the most deadly cancers early. You’re taking old studies and applying them to new technologies and saying “it won’t work.” It’s ridiculous that you are doing this.

Yes, it is a game changer, but it is not the kind of game changer that this is being made out to be here and mass screening using this method is not going to lead to improved outcomes.

As an extra tool in the toolbox of the diagnostician it is very useful.

I’m generally inclined towards the position of more testing....but there are very real tradeoffs to any of the interventions that a blood test could prompt.

It would also give the person the opportunity to change lifestyle to perhaps prolong the time that the illness will become a problem, or perhaps halt its progress altogether.

Additionally, the person who is aware of such illness, can keep an eye out for symptoms related to it, that might otherwise be ignored as something else. At which point normal cancer treatment can progress.

Data about unnecessary procedures is relatively plentiful, which is of course sad, whether that's driven by commercial incentives or the need for 'something to be done' is not something that I have any grip on but it certainly is problematic.

Another incredibly irrational argument.

If the risk from surgery outweighs the risk from cancer it it should not be performed.